For the good he did.

http://www.progressive.org/mag_intv0706

that for the good that he did (and I'll be the first to admit, I don't honestly know what all that was except that he seemed to be a finger in the eye of the United States, and I guess for some, that might be enough), he wasn't a utopian saint, that he was very much an authoritarian.

The guy won 14 years of presidency in free & fair democratic elections and had a 70% approval rating in last poll 2/13. If there's one thing we know it's you can't make everyone happy all the time, but a 70% approval rating? Sheesh, that's unheard of in the US.

For all the good he did, he had little to no tolerance for a free press, and even less tolerance for those who disagreed with him.

I didn't know about. I don't like that.

All I know is he won for 14 years and had a 70% approval rating. I'm definitely not saying the other 30% had no reason to gripe. He was definitely a bit paranoid evidenced by his insistence on going to Cuba for medical treatment, fearing putting his life in political dissenters hands.

things that I didn't previously know. It seems that while Hugo was passing out just enough goodies to keep the poor obedient, huge chunks were being doled out to his family and loyalists within his circle of friends. I listened as someone without real feelings about Chavez one way or the other, but I think people are feeling much more liberated to speak freely since his passing.

These threads have been very enlightening. Many of the names are quite familiar for their routine Anti-Obama & Anti-US sentiments. It's interesting that the things they routinely chide Obama and his supporters for, they're willing to overlook in Chavez, but I guess consistency isn't their strong suit.

PUT UP YER DUKES!11!

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

He was a hugely popular opponent of the oppression of South American nations, mostly his own, the theft of their resources, the forced dependence of those resource rich nations on the IMF, (he freed Ven. from that enslavement for which they hate him) the World Bank and worked and succeeded in beginning the process of reestablishing the sovereignty of countries in that region of the world.

He focused on the poor, on the indiginous people of the region, working to raise their standards of living, and succeeding beyond what anyone thought possible just a decade ago.

He believed in education for all and worked to make it happen, Ven. literacy rate improved immensely since he took office.

Democrats traditionally supported, throughout the Bush years and we expected that once the war criminals were out of office, US Relations with S.American democratic leaders would finally change. But to the enormous disappointment of democrats everywhere, that did not happen. But then a lot of things we had hoped for did not happen.

Democrats should most definitely eulogize Chavez. And I am suspicious of anyone who would say otherwise. Especially since this anti-Chavez sentiment with some on the 'left' is new.

How did you feel about his treatment of Jews or is that just not that important to you? And I thought those of us on the left appreciated a free press.

preferring to believe fairy stories. The Center for American Progress for whom the author writes has whined about Chavez for years.

And I mean a lot of good. As of 2006 on things really started to become dark. The soaring crime rate and the attacks on minorities (like the Jewish community) became rather ugly.

The problem we have is that people like to look at one dimension and ignore the rest, especially in a polarizing figure like Chavez.

As is, all the good he did is now at risk. He should not have run, not as sick as he was. The criss is now real for Venezuela.

They did not trust the US, especially after they observed what we did to Chile, Greece, and other countries not willing to toe our hard right line. Our international experts, fixated on "you're either with us or agin us" policies, caused a take over that eventually led to the Shah's installation, and the general mess we've had with the country ever since.

The remnants of the Cold War earned us no friends in Central America, either. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, Grenada, - the list is quite long.

Hugo Chavez brought water, sewers, light, and electricity to the mountain outside of Caracas - a feat for which he should have earned the Nobel. He also brought fear and loathing - especially among the closest US friends and supporters.

and he took power and money away from the rich oligarchs, and many would like to see the same thing happen here. So Chavez is a hero of sorts, and hero-worshipers are always willing to overlook their hero's faults:

http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/venezuela0712webwcover.pdf

They do a write up of all countries.

The point still stands. We tend to turn a blind eye to a leader's faults if we agree with many of that person's positions.

We also have a tendency to deny a leader's good works should we disagree with many of that leader's positions...

Venezuela's oil to do so. He SHOULD have handed over Ven.'s oil to the well-intentioned, altruistic, Global Oil Cartels and then they would have eulogized him. What was he thinking?

One day the US will grow up, other former Empires were forced to eventually, although a few of them hang on the coat-tails of the US, the world's latest Empire, such as Britain under Blair and Cameron, if not the people.

Until then we will see this kind of propaganda against leaders of sovereign nations who dare to stand up to our overseers, the Global Corporate Powers who run this country and can't over the fact that a guy like Chavez wouldn't let them run his country.

It won't close on their site.

I can only respond to the headline. Democrats cover an entire spectrum of political views, and can eulogize or not whom they wish.

However, Chavez was instrumental in bringing New Deal like reforms to his country. He was elected three times. Anyone who considers themselves left in this country ought to laud his FDR-style economic reforms and not want to see them torn down.

Using populism to enrich oneself...what a crock.

I wonder if Chavez is involved with "Friends of Hamas" too. I mean why bother with facts when you can just make shit up.

and I knew exactly where this guy was coming from when I saw the list of talk shows he's been on.

"what a crock..."


Almost as much a crock as a one-source claim. However, I'm quite certain you'll rationalize your position to better validate your world-view. No worries-- it's human nature.

Chavez is no different. If folks want to "eulogize" him, fine. I see nothing wrong with it.

From the TP article:

While even Chavez’s critics admit that he did attempt to address the plight of Venezuela’s poorest, the decline in economic inequality in Venezuela reflected a broader egalitarian trend in Latin America, and can’t be fully credited to Chavez’s policies. However, Chavez’ policies harmed Venezuela’s poorest in other ways: the value of the Venezuelan currency dropped while prices soared, making it harder for people to buy basic necessities, and crime skyrocketed.

Pretty weaselly passage, isn't it? No one says that Chavez deserves all the credit for "a broader egalitarian trend in Latin America", but this author is saying he doesn't deserve really deserve much credit at all. Then he goes on to say that his policies harmed Venezuela's poorest without listing in the ways that he helped them, which far outnumber the ways that it hurt them.

The accusations of anti-semitism appear to have been overstated.

he Simon Wiesenthal Center criticized President Hugo Chávez after he compared Spain's José María Aznar to Hitler.[30] In late 2005, Rabbi Henri Sobel of Brazil, a World Jewish Congress leader, also accused Chávez of anti-Semitism.[30]

In 2004, after he overcame the referendum on his presidency, Chávez told the opposition not to let themselves "be poisoned by those wandering Jews. Don't let them lead you to the place they want you to be led. There are some people saying that those 40 percent [who supported his recall] are all enemies of Chavez." The next day he said on national television that "There are some ? every day there are fewer ? 'small leaders' [dirigencillos] who don’t lead anyone, they are more isolated every day, and wander around like the wandering Jew."[9] The Roth Institute says that the Jewish community in Venezuela explains that the phrase 'wandering Jews' "was directed metaphorically at the leaders of the opposition parties" and is a common term in the Catholic world. Vice President José Vicente Rangel explained the meaning of the term the next day, and assured Jewish community leaders that it had been used inappropriately.[9] The U.S. State Department also mentioned that "A few days after his electoral victory, President Chavez gave a speech in which he compared the opposition to 'wandering Jews'."[21] Writing in The Weekly Standard, Thor Halvorssen says the United States Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor's "Report on Global Anti-Semitism" noted that "Anti-Semitic leaflets also were available to the public in an Interior and Justice Ministry office waiting room."[4]

The Weisenthal Center criticized as anti-Semitic statements made by Chávez during a celebration of Christmas 2005, at a rehabilitation center.[31] Referring to the December 2005 speech, the Miami Herald said, "It's not the first time Chávez has made comments deemed anti-Semitic. In 2005, he attacked 'some minorities, the descendants of the people who crucified Christ, [who] seized the riches of the world'."[32] Chávez stated that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world."[33]

According to the JTA, Venezuelan government sources, and Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, Jewish leaders in Venezuela said the quote omitted the reference to Bolívar, stated that Chávez was referring to Jews, and denounced the remarks as anti-Semitic by way of his allusions to wealth.[34][35] According to an article published at Forward.com, Venezuelan Jewish community leaders accused the Simon Wiesenthal Center of rushing to judgment with the anti-Semitic remarks, saying that Chávez's comments had been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to "gentile business elites" or the "white oligarchy that has dominated the region since the colonial era".[30]

According to Venezuelanalysis.com, Chávez denied the accusations, saying to the National Assembly, "Anti-liberal I am, anti-imperialist even more so, but anti-Semitic, never, that's a lie. It's part of an imperialist campaign, I am sure." Chávez said he thought the attack was, "an offensive of the empire". He dismissed the accusations of the Simon Wiesenthal Center as propaganda and said he hoped that former Prime Minister Sharon would recover from his stroke.[36] In a nationally televised speech, Chávez accused the Wiesenthal Center of working with Washington. "It's part of the imperialist campaign", Chávez said, according to the JTA. "It's part of this political battle."[35] The Wiesenthal Center's representative in Latin America replied that Chávez's mention of Christ-killers was "ambiguous at best" and that the "decision to criticize Chávez had been taken after careful consideration".[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Venezuela#20th_century

they are continuing to pay for their propaganda to try to get their big, ugly, greedy feet back into that region of the world. I believe we read that they spend hundreds of millions of dollars demonizing Chavez alone. And still they failed to succeed. The people know the facts and are no longer so easily influenced by bought and paid-for propaganda against popular leaders like Chavez.

most effective Democratically elected leaders in South America who dared to stop the theft of his country's resources by the crooked, greedy, global cartels who pay millions for propaganda against him, and still cannot succeed.

RIP Chavez, you will be badly missed by Democrats everywhere. Right Wingers, not so much!

a pass for the harm he did.

at rejecting right wing propaganda. If you're not kidding, if you forgot the sarcasm tag, then please explain what you mean by 'one good thing' for his country

I'm hoping you're kidding!

n/t

" It's my policy to not eulogize dictators.."

As has been taught to us by Oil Companies, we commend you for your righteous nobility.

History 1301 and Contemporary Events 1302 sponsored by Exxon-Mobile. You pass their test. Congratulations!

I don't know why people insist on treating it as an either/or thing.

He did great things for social justice, but also presided over an appalling crime epidemic.

He resisted US hegemony, but in doing so jumped in bed with some of the most loathsome dictators on the planet.

What's the matter with you?

And both ate unreasonable, I believe. One hails Chavez as a flawless hero, and the other as a brutal dictator. He was neither.

Chavez for obvious reasons. The Left did not view Chavez as a flawless hero, they recognized him as good, democratic leader who cared about the poor and the elderly, about women's rights and about his country's sovereignty. He was reelected over and over again in what were the most fair elections anywhere, according to Int. Observers.

Interesting though that you would use that incorrect accusation regarding 'both sides'. I am on the side of 'right'. So was Chavez, unless you think it's wrong to help your own people with profits from their own resources. No, of course he wasn't perfect, do we need to keep saying that no human being is perfect?

His country will miss him. Ven is none of our business as we have our own problems, yet there was an obsession with Chavez on the Right, and that is because Ven is an oil producing country. The US is always interested in oil producing countries and tends to prefer dictators over people like Chavez who will not hand over his country's oil to Global Oil Cartels.

Correcting lies and propaganda does not equate to 'viewing Chavez as flawless'. That is more of the propaganda btw. You might want to be careful about using it. They pay millions, it was revealed, to demonize Chavez so I would not want to do their dirty work for them, even inadvertently.

Who precisely is calling him flawless?

MOST politicians in any country are rather a mixed bag -- and I would include our current president in that as well. The need to engage in a simplistic lionizing versus demonizing categorization is borne of a rather immature way of looking at the world in my view.

The thing you posted is pretty thin gruel, if that's the question.

That and the fake story about Chavez stealing a billion dollars for himself. The original source for that story has intelligence credentials limited to a 16 hour correspondence course and it's being touted as "fact".

I'll make my own decisions on who to eulogize.

which are mostly rather questionable.

Democrats shouldn't eulogize him because the US Democratic party is pro-capitalist and Chavez helped implement a decidedly anti-capitalist economic program.

People either take him as a saint...( all the good he did for the poor and all that), or the worst of the worst, (soaring crime are, collapse of the currency, attacks on minorities)

All this is real and happening at the same time. All this was done by one very complex "essential man of history." Essential men, which is how we teach history by the way, why Chavez has been enshrined into one, it's lazy and easy, are either all good or all evil. None, not even good ol' Adolph hitler, is all good or evil.

Before anybody screams, but you are comparing him to Hitler... No I am not...not to worry...just that essential men are very complex with a lot of shades of gray. Yes, even Hitler did some good, autobahns come to mind...which inspired one commanding general later US President, cough interstate system cough

We will not be able to judge the long term effects of Chavismo for at least ten years...but the lies, and they were lies, that he was recovering, almost to the end...might very well cost "the left" the emergency election.

But you wanted to know why people react as polar opposites? Well essential men are either good or evil...it's simplistic and rather annoying. For the record, I could never talk of Chavez with my mother since he was all evil. I suspect I will mostly stay out of threads here...the nuanced view and shades of gray is neither welcomed or desired.

There has been so much disinformation about Chavez, many are fooled

is an actual dog whistle.

why he was so popular with Venezuelans generally. I also understand why class warriors from the 1% hated him.

I didn't care for him and his publicity stunts, but he wasn't a demon incarnate, as some would have it.

I wasn't going to eulogize him, but they reasons the article gives don't prove he didn't deserve one.

And come to think of it, most people will get a eulogy - it's not claiming the person was a saint. Just summarizing their good points.

Of Venezuela if he was really a man of the poor?

That could help modernize the poor areas of the country.


I wonder who gets that money now?

It was just some dude with a think-tank guessing as far as anybody can tell, and he provided no sources.

That said, it would be interesting to know how he and his family made out during his tenure.

despite some flaws, a very positive force for latin america. while making enemies with giant us corporations (and winning) has associated and defended some quite unsavory characters, as the united states has in the past, and does to this day. don't make it right, but it is what it is. many latin american countries have followed a similar, or usually more moderate, leftist model for their democracies and i applaud them for it and eulogize hugo chavez for his role in all of that. it is significant and it is good.

viva chavez